I spent four years as Forbes' Girl Friday, which to me meant doing a little bit of everything at once. As a member of the Forbes Entrepreneurs team, I looked at booming business and startup life with a female gaze. I worked on the PowerWomen Wealth and Celebrity 100 lists, keeping my ears pricked and pen poised for current event stories--from political sex scandals to celebrity gossip to international affairs. In 2012 I helped to put two South American women on the cover of FORBES Magazine: Modern Family star Sofia Vergara (the top-earning actress on U.S. television) and Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff, who is transforming the BRIC nation into an entrepreneurial powerhouse. Prior to Forbes I was at the Philadelphia CityPaper, where I learned more than any girl ever needs to know about the city's seedier trades. I studied digital journalism at The University of The Arts.
I left Forbes in November, 2013, to pursue other interests on the West Coast.

Renewed Focus On Gender Quotas In European Union

It seems that when it comes to getting more women onto executive boards in Europe, asking companies to self-police is simply not good enough. In a statement this morning EU Justice Commissioner Viviane Reding expressed her concern at the rate of increase of women in executive positions and hinted that mandatory quotas could be instituted as early as Summer 2012.

Last year Reding called on Europe’s largest companies to increase the number of women in executive positions, but the results to the call for voluntary action were slim. At the time, 24 companies signed the pledge—including LVMH and Greek firms G. Kallimanis SA, G. Leoussis SA and Trofodotiki Aigaiou SA–which aimed to bring the percentage of top female managers to 30 by 2015 and 40 percent by 2040.This morning Reding told reporters that at the current rate it would take “more than 40 years” for women to hold 40 percent of board positions in Europe’s publicly traded companies. In a sign of the lack of progress, the number of positions held by women dropped in 2011; currently women comprise 3.2% of executive chairmen, down from 3.4% in January 2010.

And so, the debate over mandated quotas as a weapon against gender disparity is once again opened. It seems that while no one likes the theory of quotas—or mandatory numbers of female executives in business—the fact that quotas do have favorable results cannot be ignored. ”Personally, I am not a great fan of quotas,” Viviane Reding said on Monday. “But I like the results they bring.” She said that mandates helped to increase the number of women in top posts in France, Belgium and the Netherlands in the past twelve months. HuffPo notes that France was responsible for half the increase in the entire European Union; its percentage raised from 12 to 24 percent in a year.

Lord Davies of Abersoch, who penned last year’s report that inspired the voluntary quota system, calls the notion of mandatory quotas a “mistake.” The decision didn’t surprise him, he said, but the implementation of a mandate would be a “disappointment.” Davies has long taken a moderate approach to the issue, and steered clear of mandates.

Davies is confident that voluntary measures are still the best path and according to FT, a study is expected next week from Davie’s team at the Cranfield School of Management to show that women’s representation on the boards of Europe’s largest companies has in fact risen from 12.5 per cent to nearly 15 per cent over the past year, something he says indicates a move in the right direction, however slow. He told the Financial Times:

“The reality is that we have insufficient number of women of the executive committees of all British listed companies,” Lord Davies said. “That’s something that will take a bit longer to fix, but I think you have to fix the board and then get the CEOs to realise that this is quite an issue.”

For Reding though, voluntarily adopted quotas have simply not moved fast enough. She points to France, where the mandate was implemented and a dramatic increase in women in executive positions was seen. ”Where there are legal regulations,” she says, “there is progress.”

Readers: We ask yet again… What are your thoughts on quotas? Are mandatory measures the best means to getting more women into the boardroom and executive positions post-haste? Or is it better to happen organically, no matter how long it takes?

Post Your Comment

Post Your Reply

Forbes writers have the ability to call out member comments they find particularly interesting. Called-out comments are highlighted across the Forbes network. You'll be notified if your comment is called out.

Comments

I think gender quotas are an excellent idea. The reality is that change comes too slowly when you leave things to chance. A slew of recent studies have demonstrated the positive effects of quotas – they curb excessive risk taking, short-sighted planning, and ultimately benefit the bottom line. More importantly, women in leadership positions have an enormous impact on the next generation. Studies have shown that young women aim higher when they see their kind represented in leadership positions, essentially creating a role model effect. I’ve written more about that study here:

The Role Model Effect: Women Leaders Key To Inspiring The Next Generation http://onforb.es/AkKTMJ

I agree. We shouldn’t even hire based on merit anymore. Let’s just give each lobby group an equal quota. Why get bogged down with tiny bureaucratic details like qualification and experience. I propose a quota for people under 6″0 as I’m only 5″7 and seeing someone of my height represented in a leadership position would provide me with a positive role model.

“The challenge of leadership is to be strong, but not rude; be kind, but not weak; be bold, but not a bully; be thoughtful, but not lazy; be humble, but not timid; be proud, but not arrogant; have humor, but without folly. “ Jim Rohn

As this quote points out, moving into a leadership position is a real challenge for aspiring women. In today’s business world, women are expected to compete, drive for results, and exercise power. Yet there is a danger that other women will perceive the female executive as uncaring, insensitive, or unsupportive—particularly of family issues. The successful female executive needs to be viewed as capable and forward thinking, but also personable, likable, and understanding. Too often we hear complaints that women executives act “more male than the male executives,” that they adopt severe clothing, stern and aggressive behaviors.

But we’re here to say that women executives can succeed by exhibiting female-related strengths and attitudes. Still, we know that women walk a fine pink line.

Unlike her male colleagues, women must be careful not be seen as overly aggressive, unnecessarily harsh, or unusually demanding while still getting things done. Even though those traits are generally viewed as positive traits in men, they continue to be viewed negatively when attributed to women. Aggressive women are rejected as “bitchy.”

Despite common beliefs and assurances that the feminist movement has triumphed, many women face overwhelming negative experiences and reactions to their authority. The higher a woman climbs, the greater the likelihood that she will experience some type of sexual discrimination. Too many men believe they have to “put a woman in her place.” They want their message crystal clear: they hold the power.

In our coaching practice, we routinely hear about the conflicts women continue to face. We are often told, “The real me is very compassionate and understanding, but it is dangerous for me to reveal my feminine side at work. This place is too hard driving.”

I agree with you, Eva, as I agree with Commissioner Reding. It would be wonderful to live in a world where quotas aren’t necessary. Unfortunately, voluntary just doesn’t change the situation, neither fast enough nor substantially enough. At the same time, sometimes the “hint” of mandatory has a way of nudging the voluntary faster along the right path.

If we believe that gender balance improves quality — and there’s extensive research supporting this claim — then it’s better for everyone if we hasten the process. Quotas and targets are the tools. I’ve talked about the “no matter how long it takes” approach with the phrase “a slow THAW for women’ where THAW stands for Time Heals All Wounds. It won’t work, as I argue in a blog entry of that name: http://bit.ly/SlowThaw

One of the reasons it won’t work is because there are structural impediments and inherent discrimination strategies — implicit though they may be.

I spell out some of my thoughts on this in my talk from the European Gender Summit, where I spoke on “Equality targets as a leadership tool” at http://bit.ly/zjx0aa. I point out here that an investment in targets is an investment in quality.

Looks like my comment didn’t make it. Sorry if this is a double posting.

If we believe that there are advantages to gender balance in leadership teams and boards — and the evidence is strong — then quotas and targets should be to everyone’s benefit.

The “just wait” approach won’t ever work because it does nothing to change the structural impediments, cf. my “Slow Thaw for Women” at http://bit.ly/SlowThaw

At the 1st European Gender Summit a few months ago, I laid out the arguments about why an investment in targets is an investment in quality. See my “Equality targets as a leadership tool” at http://bit.ly/zjx0aa.

As American we are locked in competitive struggle with the Europeans, and quotas to install more women in corporate boards will inevitably damage their economic capabilities.

Now if we could only get the Chinese to follow suit there might be a path out of our feminist-instigated economic malaise.

Despite continual citations from feminists that “women are good for the bottom line”, studies have shown that introducing more women in corporate structures leads to decline, primarily because though women compete for jobs, they do not create them, and when a corporation becomes feminized, focus shifts from efficient production of goods and services to creation of rules for the comfort and security of women. Ossification and collapse are inevitable.

The point for start is: why is good have more women in boardroom? I think it is even bad for family, bad for industry and unfair if it is consecuence of quotas ¿what would you think if a girl is put in the job you want for quotas even if you know you are better than her?